The general consensus is that the MiG-21 is an unsophisticated but effective high-speed, high-G airframe capable of turning some heads. It does have
several problems, but the most severe by far is the extreme buffeting it encounters below 15 000 feet at about Mach 0.93-0.98 where it essentially
becomes unflyable. The tactics advised by the Air Force across the board basically recommend diving and accelerating supersonic if a MiG-21 is found
to be in a favourable position. It also suffered from complaints of poor cockpit visibility due to the design of the canopy and the rear of the
cockpit itself.

The Navy does an excellent job of summarizing its conclusions on pages 211 and 212 of the PDF document. The Air Force does not do as exemplary a job,
but their analysis starts in Sec 9 (Page 40) through to Page 54. Their feelings are that the F-4 can out-power the Fishbed, that an F-105 is about
comparable in power, that an F-111 should break and run, than an F-100 better have friends, and that an F-5 is a shockingly good analogue to the
Fishbed. They also feel that the MiG-21 can out-turn the lot of them (but about on par with the F-5).

Anyone interested in reading the document but not really wanting to chew through the pages should refer to those summaries. Most of the material is
just records of test sorties for the bean counters, but doesn't provide any extra information.

BobM88
That's awesome! I've wondered about the origins of our MiG "fleet". I've read that one came from Iraq, way, way back in the 60's or early 70's. I've
assumed that most came via Israel capturing them, etc; Hopefully there'll be some great info in there about them.

I sound like a real slug in context to your OP, but I really look forward to reading about what information you find.

I remember the story about the MiG that was captured from a defecting North Korea pilot. The technicans and engineers were the first to inspect it.
Took wing, length, height measurements. Looked at the engines, the wing shapes, then they started looking at the avionics and in particular the radar
systems. They laughed when they saw that it still used old radio valves rather than transistors let alone microprocessors. Then they asked "Why would
Russian engineers do something so backward?" Then they tried EMP tests on the system. To their horror, the plane would still fly - those old radio
valves just sucked up the energy pulse with just a spark and continued running.

The USAF and USN tested the MiG-17 in an almost identical fashion to that of the MiG-21 in Have Doughnut. It was primarily compared against the F-4
variants, the F105, and the F-5 with some minor investigations on the side in terms of defensive tactics.

The most important takeaway is that this aircraft was incredibly maneuverable. Despite its rudimentary nature, the MiG-17 proved to have superior
turning power at the 350 KIA (M=0.6) flight regime. This was in complete deference to the American ideology of the time against training pilots for
close-range air combat maneuvers. Perhaps the most telling quote from the entire article:

"Every Navy pilot engaged in the project lost his first engagement with the Fresco C"

It is no coincidence that this information and the creation of the United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, aka Top Gun, were in
such close proximity. The article emphasizes the use of the extra acceleration power of American airframes over the MiG-17 as their principal
advantage. Many of the tactics presented in response to the MiG-17 utilize high speeds and low altitudes to avoid disadvantageous turning fights. It
even goes so far as to say "If you get away, don't go back unless it's on your terms!". The respect for this aircraft as a threat must have gone very
deep.

One other thing which I neglected to mention in the MiG-21 document summary was the lack of engine smoke, and this has popped up again in the MiG-17's
file. The US forces noted that neither of the Soviet aircraft produced engine smoke which made visual tracking very difficult. It was found that the
MiG-17 pilots could identify and track American aircraft by their smoke trails for several miles before they were ever noticed. This, and some other
factors led to some of the most influential conclusions in US combat aviation history.

"Elimination of exhaust trails should be a primary engine design consideration for all future US fighters" (Page 26, Main Article)
"All future US fighter developments include a gun as well as missiles" (Page 42, Main Article)

If you have to read only two slides, both Page 26 and 42 of the Main Article are very informative. I do recommend reading all of both documents as
they are relatively short and condensed.

I would imagine that the source of origin of the MiGs will not be made public?

Some clues and match ups were revealed when the US donated MiGs to museums. One MiG-21 was donated to a Museum in Belgium. The plate was still intact
and traced back to one originally suppled to Indonesia. Both Egypt and Indonesia were sources for the MiGs when they moved away from Soviet influence
during the 1970s. China also received MiGs from Egypt during the 1970s.

Nothing earth shattering, but I am so curious about what possibly could have been redacted in this line of Document 1

" . . . which I visited in order to see for myself, is not under government ownership. It is subject to a score or more of [Redacted] claims, at
least one of which is visited periodically by it's owner"

And in Document 2 in reference to the above statement in Document 1:

"He was particularly interested in why we have not yet been able to eject the various [Redacted] holding property around the area"

What in the world would go in those redacted areas that would be worthy of redacting?

Unless . . . .

" . . . which I visited in order to see for myself, is not under government ownership. It is subject to a score or more of [Human] claims, at least
one of which is visited periodically by it's owner"

AND

"He was particularly interested in why we have not yet been able to eject the various [Humans] holding property around the area"

lol . . . Just sayin . .

But seriously what could possibly fit into those blanks that would be worthy of being redacted?

IIRC large parts of the area were (and I think still are) subject to mining and other land ownership claims, I think the main issue was that the
mining rights were some sort of historical rights which were difficult to remove/over-ride?

I guess the details were redacted so that those people couldn't be easily contacted to ascertain the exact location, or to prevent other interested
parties from making further historical claims?

" . . . which I visited in order to see for myself, is not under government ownership. It is subject to a score or more of [private] claims, at least
one of which is visited periodically by it's owner"

Document 2

"He was particularly interested in why we have not yet been able to eject the various [citizens] holding property around the area"

These fit and sound logical. Why the words should have been redacted is a mystery.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.